4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  The applicant's father was the joint owner of real property located in the cadastral area of Kysucké Nové Mesto. He died in 1994.
6.  On 25 November 1994 the Bratislava IV District Court (Okresný súd) opened inheritance proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant's father. Under the applicable procedural rules, the District Court entrusted the determination of the estate to a notary public.
7.  On 26 November 1996 the notary issued an inheritance decision (osvedčenie o dedičstve) to the effect that the estate of the applicant's father included a half share in the above-mentioned real property and that the applicant had inherited half of that share. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final and binding on 12 December 1996.
8.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant sent a letter to the notary claiming that the decision of 26 November 1996 was incorrect in that it did not deal with all the immovable property which had belonged to her father. She requested “that the inheritance proceedings continue and be completed”. On 22 August 1997 the applicant sent a similar letter to the Bratislava IV District Court. She received no response.
9.  On 19 May 1999 the applicant lodged a formal application with the Čadca District Court for determination of the part of her father's estate which was not covered by the decision of 26 November 1996 as a “newly discovered inheritance” within the meaning of Article 175x of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10.  On 8 August 1999 the Čadca District Court of the judicial district in which the property lies transferred the case to the Bratislava IV District Court, which had territorial competence to examine it.
11.  On 13 March 2000 the Bratislava IV District Court entrusted the determination of the newly discovered estate to a notary public, who held hearings on 11 April and 31 May 2000 and determined the matter by a new inheritance decision on 27 February 2001. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final and binding on 17 March 2001.
12.  During the proceedings the applicant lodged numerous complaints with various public bodies about the length of the proceedings and the way in which they were being conducted. She also lodged a criminal complaint and frequently submitted new information and made various suggestions as regards the conduct of the proceedings.
13.  On 18 March 2000, in response to the applicant's complaint, the President of the Bratislava IV District Court accepted that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before that court, in particular after the applicant's application of 19 May 1999 had been transferred to it from the Čadca District Court. The President apologised for those delays.
14.  In a letter of 24 November 2000 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the conduct of the proceedings by the notary had been reviewed by the Slovakian Chamber of Notaries which had found the applicant's complaint of the notary's inactivity to be unsubstantiated. The notary had nevertheless been asked to keep the President of the Chamber informed about the progress in the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant was advised that, in the present type of proceedings, the burden of substantiating the case lay with the plaintiff. Although it was primarily the responsibility of the applicant, the notary had proactively sought information and documents from cadastral registries and other public offices.
15.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant made a written submission to the Bratislava IV District Court. She expressly stated that she agreed with the inheritance decision of 27 February 2001 and waived her right of appeal in respect of it. However, at the same time the applicant claimed that despite that decision the estate of her late father had still not been completely determined. The submission resulted in the opening of a new set of inheritance proceedings under Article 175x of the Code of Civil Procedure.
16.  The District Court assigned the determination of the “newly discovered inheritance” to the same notary who had issued the inheritance decision of 27 February 2001. The applicant challenged the notary for bias. Her challenge was accepted and the case was assigned to three other notaries who were in turn all dismissed for bias. The matter is now still pending before a fifth notary.
17.  In May 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution. She directed the complaint against the Bratislava IV District Court and claimed that it had violated her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a “reasonable time” in the proceedings relating to cases numbers D836/94, D238/00 and D894/01.
18.  On 28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It considered the matter as three separate sets of proceedings. As regards the first two sets, which had ended with the final and binding inheritance decisions of 26 November 1996 and 27 February 2001, the Constitutional Court found that the complaint was outside the statutory two‑month time‑limit. In so far as the complaint concerned the third set of proceedings, which had commenced further to the applicant's submission of 21 March 2001, the Constitutional Court found that it was manifestly ill‑founded. The Constitutional Court took into account the fact that, although the applicant had had objections to the inheritance decision of 27 February 2001, she had chosen not to appeal against it but to initiate a new set of proceedings in which she had repeatedly challenged the notaries for bias. The course of the proceedings had also been substantially influenced by the fact that the applicant's sister, who was one of the heirs, resided in Sweden. Finally, the Constitutional Court considered that the period during which the notaries had sought information from cadastral and other public authorities to support the applicant's case could not be imputed to them as unjustified delays.
19.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant's neighbour brought a civil action against her in the Bratislava IV District Court. He alleged that the applicant had publicly insulted him on numerous occasions and sought a judicial order that she apologise and pay him appropriate financial compensation.
20.  On 22 January 1998 the District Court granted the action in full as regards the apology and in part as regards the compensation. The applicant lodged an appeal (odvolanie) against that judgment.
21.  On 10 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 22 January 1998.
22.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (dovolanie) against the judgment of 10 December 1999.
23.  In July 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of the above proceedings. In a submission of 20 April 2004, she specified that her complaint related exclusively to the part of the proceedings which concerned her appeal on points of law. In her constitutional complaint, the applicant was represented by a lawyer.
24.  On 17 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 of the Convention) in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law. The Constitutional Court made an order that these proceedings be pursued promptly and awarded the applicant reimbursement of her legal costs and 30,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
25.  On 4 October 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant's appeal on points of law on the ground that she had failed to pay the court fee. The decision was later quashed on an appeal by the applicant.
On 20 June 2005 the District Court ruled that the applicant did not qualify for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee as she had failed to substantiate her claim that she was indigent. The District Court reached its conclusion on the following grounds: the applicant had failed to provide proof of her regular expenses for medication and proof that she was receiving a disability pension; and, in accordance with the Constitutional Court's judgment (nález) of 17 June 2004 (see paragraph 24 above), she had been awarded an amount of money in damages. The applicant appealed against the decision and the proceedings are still pending.
26.  The applicant's mother was the joint –owner of some real property. She died in 1979.
27.  On 12 November 1993 the applicant requested that this property be determined as a “newly discovered inheritance” under Article 175x of the Code of Civil Procedure. The determination was entrusted to a notary public, who held a hearing on 22 November 1995.
28.  In July 1994 the notary requested copies of records concerning the estate from the Košice Land Registry. In February 1995 the Land Registry acknowledged receipt of the request and advised the notary that it had been put on a waiting list and she could expect it to take at least sixteen months to make the copies. In the event, these were made in June 1995.
29.  In a letter of 11 July 1996 the notary informed the applicant that it was not clear from her submissions which precise plots in which cadastral areas formed part of the estate. The only identifiable plots lay in the cadastral area of Revúca and, unless the applicant specified any other property, the scope of the proceedings would be limited to those plots.
30.  The notary subsequently sought the assistance of the Land Registry Offices in Revúca, Liptovský Mikuláš, Vrbica, Ružomberok and Rožňava in a vain search for the other plots mentioned in the applicant's submissions.
31.  The notary then requested a hearing for 21 June 1999. The summons stated that the estate consisted solely of the land in Revúca as the claim to any other land had not been substantiated.
32.  On 8 July 1999 the Bratislava IV District Court made a ruling defining the scope of the estate and determining that the applicant and her sister had each inherited 50 percent of it.
33.  In a letter of 27 July 1999, in response to a complaint by the applicant, the President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings that were partly imputable to the notary.
34.  On 11 August 1999, further to a complaint by the applicant, the District Court issued a fresh decision in the case correcting typographical errors in the names of the applicant and her sister and in the applicant's sister's address.
35.  On 1 October 1999, on the applicant's request, the District Court corrected a further clerical error concerning the definition of the share inherited by the applicant's sister.